Little Frog in High Def

Any background info on this piece? Looks like it’s a teaser for a doc, and and a very well done one at that. I’d like to see the whole thing, if it’s part of a bigger story. Loved the editing.

Well, this is what the comments say on YouTube…

“Copyright Criminals, a documentary about digital samplings head-on collision with copyright law, features many of hip-hop musics celebrated figures—including Public Enemy, De La Soul, the Beastie Boys, and Digital Underground—as well as emerging artists from record labels Definitive Jux, Rhymesayers, Ninja Tune, and more. The documentary also provides an in-depth look at artists who have been sampled, such as former James Brown drummer Clyde Stubblefield, as well as commentary by another highly sampled musician, funk legend George Clinton.”

NO website link…wish there was.

Nice find.

It’s a little bit off topic, but check out what’s happening with copyright law in NZ at the moment.

There’s something called ‘Section 92a’ which basically provides for guilt upon accusation. Requiring ISPs to close accounts of people repeatedly accused of copyright infringing activity. There is no requirement for evidence, no penalty for false or malicious accusation, and no definition about what ‘repeated’ means, or even what level or type of infringement is required. Also no allowance for an appeal process or oversight. All directly at the request of the recording and movie industries.

Also, format-shifting for music is now specifically allowed. Not for video or anything else. Me ripping my DVDs for my own use is a crime (it may have been before too, but ambiguity left it a little open, now with a specific allowance for one type of media only, it’s not ambiguous).

Copyright is becoming pretty unbalanced now in terms of consumer rights.

Thanks for posting this. Did a quick search for the url link: http://www.copyrightcriminals.com/

Thanks Houdini

A similar project recently released, RiP: A Remix Manifesto.

I’m curious what your thoughts are on using pieces of other filmmakers work, and where fair use stops and copyright infringement begins. I feel like it falls under the same category as sampling; creating another piece of work through the transformative use of another.

Does it change the situation because of the nature of film, especially when it comes to the costs involved…not to say in some situations it’s much different than recording a song…

From an editor’s viewpoint, what do you think?

David…if I made a film and had a very small section lifted from it, like a line that might be very recognizable. Say, “Shane…come back. SHAAAAANE!” for example. They are using the line, NOT the entire film. The integrity of the film is intact. My entire storyline, plot, characters is still intact, and can only be had by watching my film. But if someone can take a bit of something from me, and a few bits from others and make something unique and entertaining…more power too them.

Now, this really only works if they are taking a small portion of the music, like part of a song. God, I wish I knew music terminology better. If they took a recognizable rhythm…a full line of music…I might have issue. Like Vanilla Ice taking that line from Queen’s PRESSURE…and just adding one note. “See, I add that note and now it is COMPLETELY different.” That is laughable. Of course he stole it and really should pay the person for the use of that.

But if the person taking bits of music just take a few notes and then really manipulate them, and from dozens of sources, they are treating those notes like a musical instrument.

Now, I haven’t seen the documentary, nor was I a fan of the music, so I am not sure how MUCH of the music they took to make their music. If it was huge lines like V. Ice did…then I would have an issue. Because that is doing more than taking a small sample.